The Pros And Cons Of Hot Spot Policing

Police Foundation stated that because the majority of a police officer's time is typically spent on non-crime related matters, the amount of time spent on crime is any less important (Police Foundation, 2017). In my opinion, there are no strategies to deter crime because criminals are going to commit a crime regardless. In doing so, there should have been a better plan and strategies of where to put each police office to cover the area that seems to have a high crime rate and the area with the less crime rate would have a patrol officer to monitor that area for appearance for the security of the neighborhood.However, I commend the effort of trying to find a solution to deter crime in the city, even though it was stated that the experiment of Kansas city crime does not compare to other city but it has some similar crime with Detroit and San Francisco. The experiment can be used if the data was accurate to brainstorm by building off the Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment to another option to execute to deter crime in another

This will help police to work by their mission which is to “maintain order and control crime.” Enforce the policy, but do it in a way which a positive relationship can be sustained in the community.

The first era of law enforcement was the political era, which started in 1840 and ended in 1930. Evolution of Policing in the US-Influence of the Political Era reports that, “During this era, police performed much more comprehensive services, such as running soup kitchens, finding shelter for the homeless and helping immigrants find jobs, in addition to dealing with criminal activity. They were closely integrated within their communities and for those within the political sphere of the elected leaders within the community; the friendly image of the Irish beat cop emerges”(2013). Since it was the first era of policing there was a lot of pros and cons, compare to the era we are in now. Scott from Police

Hotspot policing is a plan that includes targeting the places where crime is a significant problem. We will investigate further into hotspot policing; The uses/benefits, techniques, and the cons.

The biggest issue that effects policing is technology. Technology is at a rise and growing at an incredible rate. Technology advancement gives criminals a whole new way or an easier way to commit crimes. Eventually technology is going to take away jobs from our police officers and other individuals working in law enforcement. We are no longer going to need police officers out on patrol monitoring traffic, we have high speed cameras to detect incident detection, and vehicle counting, traffic flow monitoring and even people who violate traffic laws like speeding, running red lights and stop signs.

Similarly to the Oakland boys, finally, I too have suffered from over/under policing. Certain negative behaviors in my elementary were overlooked, such as bullying, despite the zero-tolerance policy. Most teachers would ignore the zero-tolerance policy and choose not to police my bully's bad behavior. When it came to pushing me down stairs, calling me fat and ugly, or rubbing my possessions into the dirt to ruin them, my teachers were lackluster in their policing. However when it came to minor, easily punishable 'crimes' that I committed, like wiggling in my chair, they were over-policing machines. This led me to the same distrust in authority as it did for the Oakland boys, I despised my teachers and thought of them as incompetent, unfair, and part of the problem- not to be trusted.

POP policy are highly focused programs that try to eliminate the problem by getting to the root cause. However, I think an extra step need to be implemented and that is Hot spot policing. The areas in question are supposedly high crime areas so why not focus on these hotspots. Hot spot policing increases police efficiency in a number of ways. It concentrates the departments attention to the area were crime is mostly likely to occur. It establishes a visible precede. What makes it more effective than the stagey already in place is it provides officer with a means to solve the root cause of the problem through problem solving efforts. Rather than what they are doing now which is focused on the strict implementation of enforcement. Using their

I think what you're referring to is the zero-tolerance policing strategy that was born from the broken windows theory. In the case of zero-tolerance policing, I tend to disagree, as not only does it create a further divide between the police and public, but it also fills correctional institutions with minor offenders. In my opinion, perhaps a better strategy to combat crime born out of the broken windows theory is to work with the community to make the area less inviting to criminals. In either case, what seems to be happening is that crime is simply displaced from the area, and forced into different neighborhoods. Thanks for the post!

However, I believe those high crime areas do need more heavy surveillance and police patrolling. If we, as a country, scaled back on examining these areas, it is likely we would see a crime spike in those areas. Scaling back would not deter people in those areas from committing crimes and abiding by the street code. Instead, it would encourage them to commit more crimes because their likelihood of getting caught would be lower. Consequently, it may even provoke them to commit more violent crimes in order to gain higher status because, with less police patrolling, the small criminal acts might begin to be seen as less “respected” by other people.

Policing is the duty of the police force to keep law and order in check in an certain area. Though sometimes this very definition is violated in America, and rarely any action is taken against it. That will change as we come to examine how criminals are turned into victims.

There have been several studies conducted on problem oriented policing which provide evidence that this method produces positive results. One example is the Jersey City Drug Market Analysis Experiment. In this experiment, Vice Police Officers were assigned to target areas (the variable) and control areas of high drug activity. Arrests were made in these areas and a follow-up was done with the landlords, local government regulatory agencies, and site-specific enforcement was recommended. After a week of follow up and monitoring the areas, the target area had a reduction in criminal activity, and it was found that this area fared better in reference to crime and deviant behavior compared to the control group (Weisburb et al., 2010).

In preparation for my debate on the topics of intelligence-led policing and Compstat policing, I have discovered the many advantages and disadvantages of using intelligence-led policing and Compstat policing. According to Carter & Carter (2009), intelligence-led policing is the collection of and analysis of data relating to crime, used by law enforcement in “developing tactical responses to threats and/or strategic planning related to emerging changing threats” (p. 317). When applied correctly, intelligence-led policing is a tool used for information sharing in identifying threats and developing responses to prevent those threats from reaching fruition (Carter, 2011). One of the advantages of using intelligence-led policing is its incorporation of data analysts. The role of the data analyst in the context of intelligence-led policing allows them to take specially trained analysts to take raw data from information found in reports and translate it into useful information for the officers, allowing the police to deploy resources more effectively and efficiently (Griffiths, 2016). Another advantage is its application through preventative and predictive policing (proactive policing), in which law enforcement take data and identify crucial variables such as terrorism or the emergence of criminal organizations, in hopes of stopping the problem at its roots (Carter, 2011). Terrorism is especially important and emphasized after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers in

It is necessary that the public has the police’s back. Furthermore, one of the major purposes of focused deterrence policing is to bring together the community and the police to push people away(BETTER WORD) from criminal lifestyles. Focused deterrence policing was implemented in Boston and the result is known as the Boston Miracle because the crime rates in Boston dropped by seventy nine percent.(VOX) In addition hot spot policing has been very successful in St. Louis. St. Louis saw violent crime decrease by more than twenty percent.

The field of police work is constantly being forced to develop and improve its protocols, procedures, and practices in an effort to keep pace with the ever-changing society in which it operates and criminal behavior it seeks to eradicate. While the history of policing has been marked by substantial changes throughout time, the work of modern-day police officers and officials demonstrate some of the most substantial adaptations to its surrounding environment that the field has ever seen. In order to understand where the future of policing is heading, it is important to first understand these current trends that are affecting the current landscape of the profession. By

The new aged concept of intelligence-led policing seems to be the ultimate answer for advancing criminal activity leading the United States. Everything new though, comes with its fair share of disadvantages and challenges. Some of the disadvantages argued against using this predicative method of policing includes the argument of limited resources, political pressure, information management, data overload, data quality, and adaptation (Casady, 2011 p. 10). Reporting indicates that there is a growing public need for information. The increasing fragmentation of the community, fear and insecurity and the growth of the risk society have generated a massive requirement for increased security and knowledge contributing to political pressure, along